A validated model of passive skeletal muscle to predict force and intramuscular pressure

The passive properties of skeletal muscle are often overlooked in muscle studies, yet they play a key role in tissue function in vivo. Studies analyzing and modeling muscle passive properties, while not uncommon, have never investigated the role of fluid content within the tissue. Additionally, intramuscular pressure (IMP) has been shown to correlate with muscle force in vivo and could be used to predict muscle force in the clinic. In this study, a novel model of skeletal muscle was developed and validated to predict both muscle stress and IMP under passive conditions for the New Zealand White Rabbit tibialis anterior. This model is the first to include fluid content within the tissue and uses whole muscle geometry. A nonlinear optimization scheme was highly effective at fitting model stress output to experimental stress data (normalized mean square error or NMSE fit value of 0.993) and validation showed very good agreement to experimental data (NMSE fit values of 0.955 and 0.860 for IMP and stress, respectively). While future work to include muscle activation would broaden the physiological application of this model, the passive implementation could be used to guide surgeries where passive muscle is stretched.     

How reliable are the Powell–Wetherall plot method and the maximum-length approach? Implications for length-based studies of growth and mortality

Length-based methods are the cornerstone of many population studies and stock assessments. This study tested two widely used methods: the Powell–Wetherall (P–W) plot and the L_max approach (i.e., estimating L_∞ directly from L_max). In most simulations, P–W estimates of the ratio total mortality/growth (Z/K ratio) were biased beyond acceptable limits (bias?>?30%). Bias in Z/K showed a complex behavior, without possible corrections. Estimates of asymptotic length (L_∞) were less biased than Z/K, but were very sensitive to intra-cohort variability in growth and to changes in the occurrence of large individuals in the sample. Exclusion of the largest size classes during the regression procedure or weighing by abundance does not solve these issues. Perfect linearization of the data and extremely narrow confidence intervals for Z/K will lead users to erroneous overconfidence in outputs. Clearly, the P–W method is not suitable for the assessment of Z/K ratios of natural populations. Estimation of L_∞ may be tentatively possible under very specific conditions, with necessary external verifications. Also, this study demonstrates that there is no way to estimate L_∞ directly from L_max, since there is no particular relationship to expect a priori between L_∞ and L_max. Errors in estimating L_∞ directly affect the estimate of the growth constant K and all other subsequent calculations in population studies, stock assessments and ecosystem models. New approaches are urgently needed for length-based studies of body growth (e.g., unconstrained curve fit with subsequent bootstrapping), that consider the inherent uncertainty regarding the underlying data and processes.     

Capturing pair-wise epistatic effects associated with three agronomic traits in barley

Genetic association mapping has been widely applied to determine genetic markers favorably associated with a trait of interest and provide information for marker-assisted selection. Many association mapping studies commonly focus on main effects due to intolerable computing intensity. This study aims to select several sets of DNA markers with potential epistasis to maximize genetic variations of some key agronomic traits in barley. By doing so, we integrated a MDR (multifactor dimensionality reduction) method with a forward variable selection approach. This integrated approach was used to determine single nucleotide polymorphism pairs with epistasis effects associated with three agronomic traits: heading date, plant height, and grain yield in barley from the barley Coordinated Agricultural Project. Our results showed that four, seven, and five SNP pairs accounted for 51.06, 45.66 and 40.42% for heading date, plant height, and grain yield, respectively with epistasis being considered, while corresponding contributions to these three traits were 45.32, 31.39, 31.31%, respectively without epistasis being included. The results suggested that epistasis model was more effective than non-epistasis model in this study and can be more preferred for other applications.